Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2008, Publicación: 98ª reunión CIT (2009)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the detailed information supplied in response to the observations made by the General Confederation of Labour –Force ouvrière (CGT–FO) concerning the Act on social dialogue and continuity of the public service in scheduled land passenger transport of 21 August 2007 (Act No. 2007-1224).

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under the terms of section 5 of this Act, transport enterprises, the employer and the representative trade unions had to engage in bargaining with a view to the conclusion, before 1 January 2008, of a collective agreement on the service to be provided in the event of disruption of traffic or a strike. This provision also established that, in the absence of an applicable agreement as of 1 January 2008, a plan of the services to be provided had to be determined by the employer. The Committee recalled the principle according to which the determination of a negotiated minimum service should be limited to the operations that are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, as it restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests. The Committee also emphasized that workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining the minimum service, along with the employers and the public authorities. Finally, the Committee recalled that, in the event of disagreement, the parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body (or recourse to a judicial body by mutual consent) responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161).

The Committee notes that the Government recalls in its reply dated 28 August 2008 that the purpose of the adopted Act is to reconcile the exercise of the right to strike with other fundamental freedoms, and that it places the social partners at the focus of the measures to be adopted in order to ensure the best coordination possible. The Government points out that the Act does not intend to establish a minimum service which would lead to the requisitioning of staff but aims to set up a system for predicting the services to be provided which makes no difference to the capacity of the strike to have an impact and apply pressure. With regard to the participation of the social partners in the mechanisms for dispute prevention and organization in the event of a strike, the Government indicates that agreements have been signed with trade unions in both the enterprises and the occupational sector concerned (for example, the agreement signed on 21 January 2008 in urban passenger transport, the extension of which making it applicable to 170 enterprises belonging to the Public Transport Union was published in the Official Journal of 15 June 2008). As regards the procedures for resolving disputes, the Government adds that national law offers a wide range of possibilities but in the transport sector there is also room for cooperation and regulation, as show by the branch negotiations which are already placed under the authority of the chairman of a joint committee, which is independent of the parties, and the task of which is to facilitate dialogue. Furthermore, within the passenger transport enterprises (RATP and SNCF), additional “social alert” clauses were signed before the 1 January 2008 deadline with five trade unions in order to ensure conformity with the provisions of the Act of 21 August 2007. According to the Government, which bases its statements on the annual statistics of the SNCF, the use of “social alert” mechanisms has more than doubled without any increase in the number of strike notices deposited; on the contrary, the number of notices leading to strikes has increased over the same period. This suggests that the periods of prior negotiation provided for by the Act do not restrict the possibility of going on strike. Finally, with regard to the possible use of a joint or independent body, the Government indicates that the setting up of such a body has not been considered necessary by the Government, Parliament or the social partners, in view of existing mechanisms. The Government also recalls that the possibility of intervention by a neutral third party to promote an amicable resolution of disputes is possible under the terms of section 6 of the Act, which provides for the appointment of a mediator by the parties. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government.

The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure, in any dispute in the land passenger transport sector and in the absence of an agreement on the determination of the minimum service to be maintained in the event of a strike, that the principle is observed whereby the workers’ organizations concerned shall be able to participate, alongside the employers and the public authorities, in the definition of this minimum service and, in the event of disagreement, the possibility is guaranteed for the parties to have recourse to a joint or independent body, according to existing or specially established mechanisms.

The Committee is also addressing a request on a number of other points directly to the Government.